text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
Thirdly, it's necessary to gain trust in government as a result of the aforementioned problems—the fact that they are corrupt and the fact that they are associated with previous members of the Awami League and the fact that they're unpopular. If you want trust in any new government, you need to remove the infrastructur... |
Finally, the most important for justice: these people are evil people who deserve punishment. The student league should be considered a terrorist organization; the Awami League youth group should be disseminated and destroyed. They are a group of people who deserve justice to come to them. Could these youth leaders fin... |
Firstly, they have explicitly set up a series of commissions to redesign their policy platform with experts involved. That legitimizes changes in refinement that occur in policy—not as backsliding, but as academic refinement on the policies they have established, which makes that change legitimate. But secondly, they'r... |
<poi> |
15 seconds, OG already gave 5 reasons: the BNP is accountable. students are immensely advertised why the BNP race? BNP must satisfy protestor demands for politicians from entering; they can still operate outside politics, and the BNP needs to prove its change from the past. This beats your extension directly. |
</poi> |
It doesn't; Allowing the BNP to come into power at a moment of unique political back and crisis and high instability with a system of corruption already in place means that none of those democratic abilities exist. They might have potential pressure from young people or from other political parties, but if they rig the... |
But if you believe that's true, then the BNP should have accountability to get better accountability when there is more youth representation in Parliament. Next, to respond to opening government: first, they say this is going to empower parties that recognize that people have these leaders. Firstly, this is directly co... |
Secondly, these people are likely to be skeptical of anyone protecting the branding of being the consequence of the revolutionary movement. Next, they say that student leaders will have too much unchecked power and will become corrupt in the end. Firstly, if there's any meaningful degree of skepticism, that explains wh... |
Like, if you believe the BNP is likely to be successful—or at least a pushback, like they say—you should believe that there is pressure that forces them to continue to be democratic because there is someone pulling them out and forcing them to be better. How are they likely to go about gaining their legitimacy? Firstly... |
Thirdly, by maintaining that commitment to democracy into the long term. So if you believe that the BNP is a meaningful opposition, it explains what youth leaders will continue to be long-term. If they do win, then the BNP winning is good; the BNP is horrible firstly they can do horrible to minorities, Secondly they is... |
</gw> |
<pm> |
This is a debate about courts and justices and judges. So, judges will interpret this as a sit and pride over certain appeals over Merchant Acquisitions after regulators have regulated and companies sue if they think that this is unfair. |
Secondly, I think this framing is important because regulators will know that this is the legal doctrine that judges and courts will adopt. Therefore, the way we approach regulating mergers and acquisitions will keep a broad scope in mind. For instance, they know they can get away with complaining that this merger acqu... |
This is important because our first argument is that consumer welfare declines in this context. The first thing I want to talk about here is that we're going to be able to essentially create companies to self-regulate before they go into the merger acquisition process. So, here's the through line: they will perceive th... |
The reason why this is important is that there are three or four reasons for this. Firstly, investors are wary, so they'll be scared if it's too risky because of the media attention that will happen if they get sued, for instance. Other considerations come into play. Secondly, legal fees are incredibly expensive for la... |
Fourthly, you are acquiring another firm, so it's likely that the other firm might get cold feet if they feel that you have not prepared enough for this process as a whole. The importance for this is that we reduce information asymmetry. |
Here's how I want to contextualize this: if a company knows that they will have the merger acquisition blocked because they have not provided the necessary information on pollution, they will go and hire consultants to make sure they conduct stuff like an environmental impact statement that reveals the total GHG emissi... |
The reason why we think this is fine is because if you have a law of capital this or you have to have a law of capital in order to acquire another firm, so this will be calculated in your decision-making process. The reason why this information is good, firstly, is that it's good for the public to be aware of this info... |
It's good for you to engage in local campaigning for your local politicians to create ordinances against these types of companies coming in. Secondly, I think it's really good for investors too, who might want to invest in this company after the merger acquisition, to know the implications of what they're getting into.... |
The second argument that I want to talk about is that we get more political will on our side of the house. I want to note that regulators do want to regulate because on their side of the house they might think that regulators are going to do this in a bad way. Firstly, the reason why they do so in a bad way in the stat... |
But because we've seen a proliferation of M&As in 100 like 450 past year, the Department of Justice and the FTC currently do not have enough resources to investigate all of this. It is easy for mergers and acquisitions to go unnoticed. Secondly, they also have a revealed preference for doing this because, for instance,... |
Thirdly, because there is bipartisan support, this is why, for instance, a lot of people like Lisa Kahn, because Lisa is really harsh against tech. That's why we have support from conservatives. Because of this bipartisan support, we've seen a lot of like like like interest in this as a whole. The reason why this indep... |
The second argument i want to; The third argument I want to pause on in this speech is that all the comparative aspects are part of why this is far worse. On the comparative, it is far worse to get environmental accountability and privacy accountability on their side. The first reason behind this is that privacy laws a... |
Things like environment, like the EPA and stuff like that, constantly get repealed in the status quo. like For instance, the "Halliburton loophole," which allows certain companies to not dispose of waste water properly, is something that was repealed by corporate interests. I'm going to prove to you why these types of ... |
<poi> |
Still haven't explain why to solve any of these problems like why does it helps the environment, why does it help with privacy, why does it help with things? |
</poi> |
So, The thing that I mentioned is that it's a preemptive measure. This is proactive; before the merger occurs, they have to prove using data studies and stuff like that to prove that there's going to be like like less environmental harm and stuff like that. So This happens before the MNA happens and then and then I'm g... |
All right, So What happens on our side of the house. what we think happens is when regulators, by the way, when regulators like the DOJ and stuff like that like regulate M&As they are not susceptible to like acts and stuff like that. They get to create their own doctrine when they're trying to do this. So When these th... |
For instance, if a utility company gets sued, then the facts of that case can be applied to future court cases. The reason why this is important is because these doctrines provide future courts with a legal basis to determine this information. The third argument I want to posit—sorry, the impact of this is that, firstl... |
</pm> |
<lo> |
This is a far worse, less important standard, and we can deal with this as a problem with the nature of other forms of direct regulation. If they want to argue that the state is weak and not enforcing direct regulation, those are the same weak states that will write this law incredibly badly, not to do the sets of thin... |
Two arguments from the opposition: first of all, this massively freezes out investment in mergers and acquisitions, both of which are not good. Secondly, why this is a worse, less easy, and ultimately more harmful standard to aim for. Let's start with why this freezes out investment. |
The first thing to say is that it massively broadens the scope of what can be used so the first primacy why does this mergers way up. Firstly this massively broadens the scope of what can be used to reject a merger. Secondly, that scope becomes nearly boundless because non-economic harms they nearly boundlessly categor... |
Thirdly, these are much more interpretable because they're a lot more about value trade-offs, which also means you raise the uncertainty because judge-specific risk is more specific; it's higher because particular judges are going to interpret this in many more different ways. Whereas judges at the moment, when it's a ... |
And it also shows the willingness of courts and of your legislators to continue to expand antitrust legislation into the future, which means that you're incredibly likely to have people think that mergers are less likely. Why is this a harm? First, because you get less mergers, and secondly, you get less initial invest... |
Let's start with mergers. Obviously, when it's harder to get a merger approved, you're less likely to attempt that merger because there's a high level of investment that has to go into setting up a merger, finding a merger partner. You have to do things like due diligence, set it up; that is an incredibly high cost tha... |
And we think that mergers are, on net, good because they lead to larger scale. It means you can operate more efficiently because you get economies of scale. It makes firms more durable to idiosyncratic market risks; they're less likely to go down, leaving consumers without goods and workers without jobs. It means that ... |
It means that profitable parts of the business can cross-subsidize non-profitable parts of those businesses. So, that means that these mergers are, on net, good. And I know that those mergers are likely to be pro-competitive for the reason, first of all, that under the consumer welfare standard, they wouldn't be let th... |
This team may just not notice the fact that a merger has happened in almost every jurisdiction around the world and, in a few months in Australia as well, there's mandatory notification of the regulator when you reach a certain threshold. They're not going to ignore that from happening. |
But secondly, I would argue that mergers are, on net, pro-competitive. The reason for that is that without mergers, you often get one or two large firms rise to the top, and then no one else is ever able to compete with them or grow to compete with them. If it's theoretical competition but I have 80% of the market and ... |
But when all the smaller firms can merge, they can then become reasonable competition. So, actually, mergers are a net pro-competitive. I'll also note that there's now an incentive for larger firms not to provide business-to-business goods that allow the fixing of those externalities that would allow smaller firms to m... |
So, take an example of this: Google letting you use their login on their website is really important for you being able to alleviate privacy concerns. But if Google knew that it would allow the small players in the market to merge, there might be a concern otherwise that they would have too much data and they would be ... |
They wouldn't want to let those smaller players use that Google login, so they no longer want to provide goods that allow the amelioration of those externalities because they know that the minimization of those externalities makes it easier for them to be competitive with them. |
So now we get more competition. And I'll also note that this now means that competition law becomes less popular on that side. First of all, because it's now making decisions about things that aren't universally agreed upon. Secondly, it's associated with the left, because under the status quo, the right can be pro-mar... |
Whereas now you're saying we should trade off market efficiency for other outcomes, which makes it far less popular. It can also be framed as a form of corruption because you're using it as a political weapon, and you're now likely to have lots of people who lose their jobs and can make the argument that my job is trad... |
This means you're less likely to enforce in the first instance if they're worried about competition. We now get less investment into really important things, and if you don't do the initial investment, if you're worried you might not be able to merge or acquire, first, you often don't do the initial investment because ... |
You're more likely to be able to make your business bigger if, along the way, you can buy out other firms. So, the likelihood to merge means that my initial investment is worth less, which means I'm less likely to do that initial investment. Yes, |
<poi> |
The issue is when these firms become too big to fail. You are unable to have these environmental and privacy regulations in the future because a few drops in the bucket produce large companies that need to have this proactive regulation. |
</poi> |
Then you have large fines, like there are incredibly large fines that have been put against huge companies in the order of billions of dollars, or you just ban it; you send people to jail. Regulation doesn't always work. |
One regulation has followed, come on, most debated argument in the world. The second argument: why is this a worse standard to aim for? Because when you're optimizing for their standard, you're optimizing for more things, you can less optimize for our standard of economic things. I'm going to explain why the economics ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.